# 2012-130 Careers, Cease-Training, Procedural Fairness, Progress Review Board (PRB)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–02–19

The grievor was ordered to cease training from the Pilot Phase IIA course while a student at 2 Canadian Forces Flying Training School (2 CFFTS). The grievor alleged that the Progress Review Board (hereinafter “Progress Review”) process outlined in orders was not adhered to and that aspects of the course training and flying assessments did not adhere to the course syllabus. The grievor was subsequently reclassified to a different military occupation.

The issue before the Canadian Forces Grievance Board (hereinafter “the Board”) was whether the decision of the Commandant 2 CFFTS to cease training and was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.

The Chief of the Air Staff, as the Initial Authority, found that the grievor had been treated fairly and her removal from training was the result of an inability to continuously perform at the level prescribed by training standards.

The Board examined the preliminary issue of procedural fairness that requires an administrative authority, making a decision that affects a person's interests, to inform that person and provide them with the opportunity to make representations. In this case, a Progress Review had been convened to consider whether the grievor should continue training as a pilot. The Progress Review recommended that the grievor continue training, however, the Commandant rejected this recommendation and ordered to cease training due to the fact that the grievor had met the course failure criteria of the syllabus. Although the Commandant had the authority to reject the recommendation of the Progress Review, the Board was of the opinion that he had an obligation to explain his reasoning in some detail. Of concern to the Board was the brevity of the written reasons provided by the Commandant in his decision. The Board was of the opinion, however, that the grievance process could cure this breach of procedural fairness by providing a de novo review of the file.

A second Progress Review was also conducted by 2 CFFTS to review the officer like qualities of the grievor due to concerns raised in the first Progress Review. However the second Progress Review found that the grievor displayed satisfactory officer like qualities and recommended reclassification to another military officer occupation.

Upon review, the Board found that the convening of a Progress Review to consider the grievor's unsatisfactory flying progress was appropriate in the circumstances. The Board was also satisfied that the evidence on file showed that the grievor had failed to meet the standard outlined in the relevant Training Plan within the allocated time. Thus, the Board found that although the initial decision to cease training was procedurally unfair, after a de novo review, it was found to be a reasonable and proper course of action. Accordingly, the Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–06–13

The FA agreed with the Board's recommendation that the grievance be denied. Contrary to the Board, the FA found that the written decision to cease train the grievor was adequate and sufficient in the circumstances and consequently, did not amount to a breach of procedural fairness. However, the FA found that there was a breach in procedural fairness because the grievor was not given the opportunity to submit further representation following the PRB report that was to be submitted to the Commandant. Although the FA disagreed with the Board on the occurrence of the breach, he agreed that the de novo review performed within the grievance process cured the breach of procedural fairness.